Presentation given to NCVHS on implementation of HIPAA

1. Issues for a successful
Migration to the next
version of HIPAA
Standards
July 31, 2007
Michele M. Vilaret
Director, Telecommunication Standards
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
My name is Michele Vilaret, I am the Director of Telecommunications Standards
with the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this important topic today.
NACDS represents the nation’s leading retail chain pharmacies and suppliers,
helping them better meet the changing needs of their patients and
customers. Chain pharmacies operate more than 38,000 pharmacies, employ
114,000 pharmacists, fill more than 2.3 billion prescriptions yearly, and have annual
sales of nearly $700 billion.
1

2. Business Benefit
835
Tighter business rules to eliminate
options
Eliminated codes marked “not advised”
Added the ability to report payment
options
Secondary payment reporting
considerations section revised
2
During this presentation I am going to attempt to answer most of the questions
asked by the panel. For this presentation I polled our members to obtain their
options on these issues.
The first question dealt with the Business benefits of the various HIPAA standards
The 835, Remittance Advice is essential to pharmacy to ensure payment.
Tighter business rules to eliminate options is badly needed with the 835. Most of the
problems that we deal with today are due to the various interpretations of the 835. If
the business rules are tightened and better defined then there should be less room
for “interpretation”.
It is very helpful that the several of the codes have been eliminated. We are in the
process of reviewing the list of eliminated codes and so far there has been only one
that we have found that we needed as an industry which we were able to prove as
useful and get returned to the list. It has been very helpful to keep the NCPDP
work group involved in this process. It is always good to eliminate codes that are no
longer used to keep code lists to a minimum.
Reporting of payment options is not as important to pharmacy as to other entities.
Pharmacy prefers EFT.
Secondary payment reporting is extremely important to pharmacy. This section
results in a lot of errors and a lot of time spent manually reconciling claims. The
changes made in this area are essential to our business.
2

3. 837
Used in MTM billing and some DME
billing
No plans to implement
Too complicated and expensive
Use outside vendors for billing
No ROI
Still waiting for ruling from CMS
3
Although the 837 is used in MTM and service billing as well as by some state
Medicaid plans for DME claims chains pharmacies do not plan to implement this
transaction. Implementation is just too complicated and expensive. Instead
pharmacies plan to use outside vendors in the billing process. There is just no
Return on Investment to the provider if they invest the time and money to code for
the 837 (it is estimated that it takes well over 1 year to code for the 837) – it is not a
good investment when the transaction is not widely used by pharmacy. We are still
waiting for a ruling from CMS on whether NCPDP 5.1 can be used in conjunction
with the 837 for MTM and/or service billing.
3

4. D.0
Better guidance for coordination of benefits
Needed to process Part D claims
– Enhanced Eligibility
– Enhanced Coordination of Benefits
Patient responsibility
Benefit stage to help identify coverage gap
– Enhancements to Service Billing for MTM claims
processing
Too many workarounds in current system
4
Pharmacy needs D.0 to provide better guidance in coordination of benefit situations.
Currently, most of the problems that we have with NCPDP 5.1 deal with
misinterpretation of “coordination of benefits”. NCPDP went to great lengths to
redefine the “other coverage codes” and to provide claim examples in COB
situations in order to eliminate future confusion.
Pharmacies also need D.0 to process Medicare Part D claims due to all of the
enhancements that NCPDP and CMS have added to D.0 for processing of Part D
claims including –
Enhanced eligibility check
Enhanced “coordination of benefits” section which now identifies “patient
responsibility” and “benefit stage” to help identify the coverage gap on secondary
claims.
Several enhancements have also been added to the “service billing” for MTM claims
processing in hopes that CMS will rule that D.0 may be used to process MTM
claims especially for Medicare Part D claims.
We currently have too many workarounds in pharmacy systems due to the short
comings of NCPDP Version 5.1 especially when it comes to processing
“coordination of benefits” claims. D.0 is badly needed with its redefined pricing
segments and robust “coordination of benefits”, as well as streamlined compound
claims processing.
4

5. Implementation Plan
Need an implementation plan
– Similar to 5.1
– NHIN or WEDI
Regulation should set milestone dates
Industry should monitor progress
Don’t enforce phased in approach
Encourage testing between trading partners
Mandated testing for non dual version
implementers
Chain pharmacy can support a dual version,
processors also
5
We need an implementation plan similar to 5.1. We found that working through
NHIN (the National Health Information Network) for version 5.1 was very
successful. For Version D.0 we may want to use WEDI if NHIN is not available.
It would be a good idea for the regulation to set milestone dates. This will help to
keep the industry on track, but let the industry monitor its own progress through
NHIN or WEDI.
Some pharmacies will implement D.0 as a phased in approach but others will not.
Because of this we would not support a mandatory phased in approach.
Testing between some trading partners will be necessary but not mandatory for all.
Testing will need to be mandated for plans or payers that are not going to
implement a D.0/ 5.1 dual version strategy. Therefore we cannot support mandatory
testing for all, only for those who will not implement a dual version strategy.
We surveyed our members and all of chain pharmacy can support a dual version of
translations for the phased in periods and beyond. This includes processors. If there
are pharmacies that may have difficulties with the dual version approach, there are
vendors that are capable of assisting them through the transition.
5

6. Implementation
Continued
Track through one entity
Did this in 5.1 through NHIN
Milestones (D.0)
– Claims
– Eligibility
– Service billing
– Prior Authorization
6
The Implementation process should be tracked through one entity as we did in 5.1
through NHIN. Pharmacies may not code for all segments depending on
companion guides from the various payers.
Suggested milestones for pharmacy providers D.0 would be:
- Claims
- Eligibility
- Service billing (only if approved by CMS for use in MTM)
- Prior authorization
Milestones would differ for different providers
6

7. Education
Needs to begin as soon as final rule is
released
NCPDP had a series of educational
sessions
Additional sessions needed
D.0 is quite different from NCPDP V
5.1
Reactivate “Ask HIPAA” listserv
7
Education to the providers, payers and software vendors needs to begin as soon as
the final rule is released.
NCPDP has already had a series of educational sessions. Additional educational
sessions will definitely be needed since D.0 is quite different from NCPDP version
5.1 . Previously CMS provided the “Ask HIPAA” listserv which was quite valuable.
We recommend the reactivation of this service. Providers found this to be very
helpful during the implementation of 5.1.
7

8. Overlap with other HIPAA
Initiatives
Other HIPAA initiatives tie up IT
resources
Difficult to implement D.0 on
schedule
Don’t have dedicated resources
No additional staffing
8
Pharmacies have limited resources, other HIPAA initiatives such as ICD-10 would
tie up these limited resources that are already dedicated to priority projects such as
D.0. This makes it very difficult to keep to an implementation schedule since
pharmacies don’t always have dedicated resources for these types of project. We
ask that you not have overlapping compliance dates for HIPAA requirements.
8

9. Lessons Learned from initial
HIPAA Implementation
Not enough time
Need full 2 years
State Medicaid programs were slow to implement
Misinterpretation of standards
Plans required (by hard cutover date)
implementation prior to compliance date
Processors need to offer either/or implementation
for period before cutting off 5.1.
Hard Cutover only on compliance date
– Mandated testing for these plans
9
What lessons did we learn from our previous HIPAA implementation?
Last time we did not have enough time to implement …we need a full 2 years to
properly implement D.0. The state Medicaid programs were especially slow to
implement the initial HIPAA standard. We must make sure they are on the same
page this time.
We also need to make sure that payers are flexible. We spent a lot of time last time
dealing with plans that had misinterpreted the standards. This can waste a lot of
everyone’s valuable time. We may need assistance from CMS or NCPDP in
enforcing and interpreting the standards.
We can not have all plans implementing on the compliance date. Plans should be
required to implement D.0 prior to the compliance date with an either/or strategy.
They can eliminate the use of 5.1 on the compliance date.
We also need to make sure that we don’t have any early implementers. That was
also a problem last time. IF a plan wants to mandate D.0 only they can only do so
on the compliance date, not before. Prior to the compliance date they must
implement with the dual version strategy. If plans are going to implement with a
hard cutover to D.0 then testing must be mandated. There is no other way to ensure
a seamless implementation than without mandated testing.
9

10. How to Avoid Extensions
Work with Medicaid directors to ensure
that timeline is workable
Pharmacies must be given payer
requirements at least 90 days prior to
go live date
Payers must allow for flexibility if they
have misinterpreted the standard
10
How do we avoid extensions? We have to work with the slow adopters from the
previous version of HIPAA. Make sure that the Medicaid directors are on board and
ensure that the timeline is workable.
Also, make sure that pharmacies receive the payer sheets or companion guides at
least 90 days prior to go live date of the plan. This should be mandated in the rule.
Based on experiences with 5.1 it is VERY important that payers allow for flexibility
especially in areas where they (the payers) have misinterpreted the standard and
are asking pharmacies to provide inappropriate information especially when this
causes a HIPAA violation.
10

11. The Need for D.0
Medicare Part D enhancements
– Updated Eligibility Transaction to include
Data elements to provide clear indication of
patient coverage
Medicare Part B enhancements
– Additional elements to support:
DMERC payment/billing
Certificates of Medical Necessity
Cross over claims
11
There are many difference between 5.1 and D.0 that were requested by the industry
to improve claims processing.
In order to provide patient eligibility information for Medicare Part D and also other
insurance information coverage, wide scale changes to the “eligibility transaction”
were required. Changes include the addition of three segments along with new data
elements and rejection codes and the shifting of data elements from one segment to
a new segment. Additionally, long term care pharmacy claims processing required
new data element and new rejection messaging codes in order to appropriately
identify and process Medicare Part D Claims.
For Part B - Three segments were added to facilitate the processing of Medicare
certificates of medical necessity. New data elements were identified and added to
allow the items needed to process Medicare Part B transactions and assist the
crossover of claims from Medicare to Medicaid.
11

12. The Need for D.0 (cont)
Clarification and corrections for billing of
Compounds.
Clarification for COB (Coordination of
Benefit) processes.
COB enhancements to support dual
coverage of Medicare D beneficiaries.
Changed and expanded messaging returned
to providers
Additional breakout of payment fields
12
In version D.0, the only method for billing of compounds has been clarified. The two
alternatives supported in previous versions for compounded claim processing were
removed.
Extensive clarification was made for “coordination of benefits” processing as COB is
more complicated with more complex rules than in the past. New data elements
have been created for helping to identify various stages of the coverage gap during
Part D claim processing. These include “patient responsibility” and “benefit stage”.
Also the “other coverage codes” were redefined to help ease confusion during
secondary claims processing.
The messages returned on rejected claims were changed and expanded in D.0 to
help better communicate reject codes to the pharmacists and pharmacy staff.
And the additional breakout of payment fields allows pharmacies to convey the
proper financial details of a claim to the processor.
12

13. The Need for D.0 (cont)
Service Billing has been enhanced to
better handle MTM billing for Part D.
– Hopefully approved as a HIPAA billing
standard by CMS
13
“Service billing” has been enhanced to better handle MTM billing from Part D and
now has it own transaction code. Hopefully “service billing” will be approved as a
HIPAA billing standard by CMS and will be able to be used in future transactions in
place of the 837.
13

14. Conclusion
Will take chains approximately 1 year to code and
test
Concern is that State Medicaid Programs will not be
compliant within that timeframe
Mandate implementation of dual strategy prior to
compliance date
Plans that cannot implement dual strategy cannot
implement until compliance date and must test with
providers prior to implementation
Suggested compliance date 2 years after final rule
14
Given the complexity of D.0 chain pharmacy is going to need a full 1 year to
implement this standard – It will take them about 1 year to code and test. Our
concern is that the state Medicaid programs will not be compliant even within this
timeframe. There is also concern that some plans may try to implement the
standard early before systems are compliant.
Therefore, we ask that the rule mandate that plans cannot implement prior to the
compliance date with D.0 only. We prefer that plans implement prior to the
compliance date and allow the use of either 5.1 or D.0. If a plan can only implement
using D.0 then the plan must test with providers and cannot implement using this
strategy until the compliance date.
Our suggested final compliance date would be 2 years after the final rule. At that
time all entities should be able to process claims accordingly using all aspects of
D.0.
14

15. Thank you
Michele M Vilaret, R.Ph.
mvilaret@nacds.org
703-837-4221
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.
Feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Questions?
15